Limit executive Incomes
- Thread starter ccoleman77
- Start date
Bad comparison ....... Orca, along with a lot of the other Hollywood companies that people here have mentioned at 100% PRIVATE.
There's no talk of doing anything to or limiting private enterprize in any way.
limiting private citizens' salaries in a private company is limiting private enterprise.
Well, I owned Disney stock when they owned ABC-Cap studios. I Know that NBC owns Universal Studios and both of them are owned by General Electric.I'm not in favor of Salary limitations, but how can obama limit only certain corporate execs? Iknow he wouldn't think of limiting money in hollywood, that liberal stronghold would turn on him instantly if he threatened their lifestyle. Also, I think the Ceo should be responsible to the company before the stock holders. Locally, Reynolds Aluminum, Longview Fibre, and Weyerhaeuser have all made changes that hurt them long term because shareholders wanted larger short term gains
so are you saying that you would rather have these companies, that basically control of the whole country's future, piss away the money they need to keep things working properly? just because the multi millionaire people(in no way do they resemble the average american) that are working there need 100s and 50s to wipe their a$$?
am i thinking wrong? yes id like to be rich but ill be lucky if i make 500k in this lifetime...
am i thinking wrong? yes id like to be rich but ill be lucky if i make 500k in this lifetime...
You have a good point there. But, how do you make the CEO not responsive to people that own the company? Generally, the CEO is the chairman of the board of directors, and the board of directors is the executive representatives of the owners. Maybe there needs to be a way to limit short term ownership, and return to long term ownership of stocks? Don't know how that would happen though. Day traders are the ultimate short termer, I just can't see how that's healthy long term.
500K in a lifetime? Geeze, you need to be turning that every 5 years.
Last edited:
The ones that ran things in the ground should get nothing but if you were the one working at AIG that arranged the 10 jillion dollar bailout from the government, working on a commision. (You don't get paid unless you pull it off) , would you then be pissed that the government wanted to tax you at 90% for your part of salvaging a company that they voted to rescue? I don't think they should have bailed them out but since they did, if that company has a chance of succeeding they'll need to be able to hire people who can make things happen. With the gov capping pay, the guys that know how to turn things around (Like Jack Welch did for GE) are going to go somewhere else and these companies that you say "control this countries future" aren't going to make it without strong leadership. 500k gets you 22 year old business school grad, not a been there-fixed that executive.
C
ccoleman77
ACCOUNT CLOSED
By bailing the companies we screwed the cycle. The execs shouldn't get paid when the company does well. When it fails it SHOULD GO BANKRUPT not be falsely propped up
O
Ollie
ACCOUNT CLOSED
The problem with the banking industry is simple.
Governement interference.
When the government protects banks and banking industries from bankrupcy or law suits then they allow and even incurage this nonesence.
No one cares if they make 5 million dollars a year when they are doing great, however, when they run the company into the ground they should be completely liable for the mess they created. If that means they lose their jobs, get tossed in jail or get taken to court and lose everything they ever worked for, then so be it. A few people lose everything and then some and it would stop.
There has always and always will be greed. It is the dark side of democracy. To try and tame that is the straight path to socialism.
Let them get rich is they can do it legally and without destorying anyone else.
However.
When they do harm others with there greed, don't shield them from the consequences of their actions.
Governement interference.
When the government protects banks and banking industries from bankrupcy or law suits then they allow and even incurage this nonesence.
No one cares if they make 5 million dollars a year when they are doing great, however, when they run the company into the ground they should be completely liable for the mess they created. If that means they lose their jobs, get tossed in jail or get taken to court and lose everything they ever worked for, then so be it. A few people lose everything and then some and it would stop.
There has always and always will be greed. It is the dark side of democracy. To try and tame that is the straight path to socialism.
Let them get rich is they can do it legally and without destorying anyone else.
However.
When they do harm others with there greed, don't shield them from the consequences of their actions.
I think that a companies will to survive will dictate their pay policies much more successfully than Obama, Pelosi and Barney Frank can.
There are now only 5 nations on the world left without a Rothschild controlled central bank: Iran; North Korea; Sudan; Cuba; and Libya.
The inmates are running the asylum. The one thing most of the ceo's of big banking and finance are almost all Ivy League graduates and most from Harvard. And all the massiah's regulators are from the same Institutions. The Supreme court ruled years ago "what the federal government pays for the federal government can control" Don't take the money you wont get the control, Hillsdale College learned that years ago.Swampy
Some simple questions.
How can they earn a bonus if the company is failing?
Even if they made there numbers for a bonus, why should the company have to borrow money to pay the bonus.
If there giving bonus's for retention purposes, why do they want to keep the people that ran them into the ground?
What companies will hire these guy's for top dollar after they ran there former companies into the ground?
How can they earn a bonus if the company is failing?
Even if they made there numbers for a bonus, why should the company have to borrow money to pay the bonus.
If there giving bonus's for retention purposes, why do they want to keep the people that ran them into the ground?
What companies will hire these guy's for top dollar after they ran there former companies into the ground?
S
skidoorulz
Well-known member
Here's my take on it. I work for a company that a few years back posted on the bulletin boards of all facilities which are all over the U.S., Canada and Europe, that the CEO of the company received 151 million dollars in cash and stock options as a salary for that year, up 10 million from the pryor year. 2 weeks later as that notice was still on the bulletin boards all employees were told that due to the less than stellar results of last year the company was only able to give employees a .25% increase in their wage. Now do you think that I think Executive wages should be capped? The answer is you D A M N right I do. I also think that some of them should be put into jail. I do not belong to a union and firmly beleive that unions are part of the problem that we have with our companies, but their are other factors that contribute to the problems also. I mean for crying out loud, How fricken much money do some of these crooks really think they need. The greed in this country never ceases to amaze me.
M
MTdream
Well-known member
which is why most of these companies fail (eventually)...
However, you can never inject ethics via a government transfusion of governance...
O
Ollie
ACCOUNT CLOSED
No caps.
If the employees don't like it.
Quit.
It is NOT the governments job to set what a person can and can't make.
That is called socialism. If the bosses make too much in your opinion, feel free to leave. When the company can't find employees, they will increase the employees pay. If the employees will take a small salary, then companies will pay small wages.
If the company can't find people to put up with their BS they will pay them enough to put up with it.
That is how the system works.
S
skidoorulz
Well-known member
??????????????????
If you think thats how the system should be, your part of the problem.
People don't deserve to get paid for putting up with BS, They need to get paid for what they produce.
Nobody cared what they got paid, until they wanted me and everybody else to pay there wages.
I don't want the government telling me or anybody else what we can make or pay employees. But their's to many people with your mind set that ,I'll scre** every thing up, and then have the government bail me out.
S
Super B
Well-known member
Similar threads
